K.C. Puri, J. - (1.) UNDER challenge in this Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is the award dated 8.5.2005, Annexure P -6, passed by the Labour Court, UT, Chandigarh where the claim of the petitioner was rejected.
(2.) THE averments of the petitioner are that he was appointed as a Car Driver vide order dated 17.1.1996 by respondent No. 2 against vacant post in the pay scale of Rs. 1020 -2130 with special pay of Rs. 350/ -and other allowances on which post he continued to work till 31.1.1997. His services were terminated by the respondent No. 2 without issuing him any show cause notice. He was also not given any personal hearing and no enquiry was held before termination of his services. He was also neither given any one month's notice nor compensation to which he was entitled to under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). He served a demand notice under Section 2 -A of the Act upon respondent No. 2 on 3.4.1997. The respondent No. 2 filed reply stating therein that the petitioner had not completed 240 days of continuous service and that he was not entitled to the relief claimed by him. The Labour Court ultimately passed impugned award dated 8.5.2002 whereby his claim was rejected. He has impugned the award dated 8.5.2002 on various grounds which will be discussed in the later part of the judgment. The claim of the petitioner was contested by respondent No. 2. In the written statement, it has been pleaded that the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis for 89 days vide order dated 17.1.1996. He joined duty on 4.3.1996 and remained in service upto 31.5.1996. There were breaks in his service from 4.6.1996 to 31.8.1996 and from 3.9.1996 to 31.10.1996. His services were not required after 31.10.1996. Therefore, there was no need to give him any show cause notice or hearing as per terms and conditions of his appointment letter. There was also no need to hold any inquiry. The the provisions of Section 25F of the Act were not applicable in this case as the petitioner had not completed 240 days of service as a driver. Similarly, no retrenchment compensation was required to be paid to the petitioner on the same count. The services of the petitioner were not required after 31.10.1996. The petitioner continued to work voluntarily and without pay after 31.10.1996. It was denied that the petitioner worked upto 3.1.1997 without any breaks. The respondent No. 2 has supported the award of the Labour Court.
(3.) MRS . Alka Chatrath has submitted that the petitioner has been non -suited by the Labour Court on the ground that he has not completed 240 days with the respondent No. 2. The finding of the learned Labour Court cannot be accepted. According to respondent No. 2, the petitioner has worked 237 days with the respondent as under: 4.3.1996 to 31.5.1996 89 days. 4.6.1996 to 31.8.1996 89 days. 3.9.1996 to 31.10.1996 59 days. - - - - - - - - - Total 237 days. - - - - - - - - -;